Home

Details

Okay, I didn't want to weigh in on this, but it's hard not to.

This is a terrible tragedy.  The first and most important thing is medical, moral and legal support for the survivors.  If that wasn't the first thing you thought of, you're an asshole.

I was going to leave it there, but I'm being bombarded with angry posts from people. 

Now, it's perfectly understandable (speaking of the public, not the participants) to feel shock, outrage, impotence, fear.

So, the obvious solution is to BAN ALL THE GUNS!!!!!  And I'm a lunatic/hater/right wing retard for owning and using them.

Which is the same bullshit we hear every time there's a crime.

Look, some asshole stabbed a bunch of kids in China yesterday.  The worst school killing in the US was in the 1920s and featured home made bombs.  Some other asshole drove his Cadillac into a schoolyard in the 1980s.  If someone wants to kill people, there are plenty of ways to do so.  Whether or not guns exist, killers will.

As to banning, it'll be about as successful as prohibiting booze.  Guns are a 13th century technology.  They can be built in a modestly equipped garage, and they are.  Peasants in Afghanistan make them in caves.  So any talk of banning is ridiculous.

Also, guns are illegal in schools, so this asshole was breaking the law!  Gee, I guess murderous cocksuckers don't care about laws.  How about that?

In fact, MURDER is apparently illegal in the US, and also not well-regarded. 

Guns exist and you can't make them go away.  If guns didn't exist, there are plenty of other ways to kill people, which were used very effectively for tens or hundreds of thousands of years before guns existed.  

Let the families grieve, pray for them if it makes you feel better, and don't attack the 94 million gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. 

Details

Take an appropriate food--eggs, chicken, steak, or pie, cake, fruit: X

Adding bacon, or chocolate, makes these food MORE AWESOME: X + Bacon = X(qty bacon) or X + Chocolate = X(qty Chocolate)

Eventually, 100% bacon or chocolate is achieved.  This is the maximum coefficient of awesome: MCx(W00t)

The problem comes upon reaching MCx(W00t), some people lose track of the asymptote.

"I should add something to bacon/chocolate to make it MORE AWESOME!"

Sorry, but this doesn't work.  Once maximum awesomeness has been achieved, adding anything else dilutes the awesomeness:  MCx(W00t)-W00t = MCx(W00t)/W00t

Nor does the combination.  In that case, MCx(W00t) X MCx(~W00t) = MCx(blah)

The math proves it.

Maintain your awesomeness.  Don't dilute it.

Details

So, right after the election, Papa John's cut back hours on a number of employees to avoid the 0care expenses.

Libtards make statements about "greed" and "I guess he's just not very smart" and "it's only a fraction of a percent of his business according to so and so."

First, few pizza places offer ANY benefits, so if he was, he's ahead of most, and if not, it's an indication that the industry can't support said benefits.  Fact.

Second, a fraction of a percent on a business that probably operates on 3% margin is significant.  But even if it's 10% margin, that would mean a 5-10% difference in return, which is significant.

Third, since this man built a billion dollar business, we must assume he does, in fact, have some grasp of business and economics.  You can play "he didn't build that" games all day long.  In fact, he did.  Even if all he did was pick smart people, that would obviously be the winning strategy.

Fourth, we must assume he has those employees because he thinks he needs them.  If he's just employing them for the hell of it, then he's ALREADY an Awesome Liberal Guy.

So, if he's cutting them back, it's not because they're extraneous (And if they were, he'd still be correct to, and, more importantly, as the owner, it's his right to), but because it affects the bottom line of his customers, stockholders and self more than it does the employees.  If you can put yourself first, then he can put HIMSELF first.  If you disagree with this, you must altruistically paypal me $5 to my gmail at mzmadmike.

But, if you're positive you know better than he does, you should absolutely start your own billion dollar business and treat the employees better.  I look forward to it, and will buy your pizza.

Of course, the libtard solution (after gnashing of teeth, wailing of internetz, rending of garments and other demonstrations of impotence) is...BOYCOTT!  Stop buying the Evul Greedy Capitalist's product, and that will TOTALLY teach him!  Maybe a 5% drop in profits will teach him!  He'll have to use austerity measures like... laying off employees!

Yeah, you really are fucking morons. 

Details

Obama: "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."

~~~

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865 British bayonet charge in Basra.  You can also find quite a few pictures of US troops with mounted bayonets.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/06/us/afghanistan-horse-soldiers-memorial/index.html A tribute to the Special Ops guys who went into A-stan on horseback to find intel.  

 If I knew there was a John Ringo book coming out next week, I would not say "John Ringo is outdated," or even "John Ringo isn't publishing as much as he used to." Either statement COULD be correct (They're not, but this is a mental exercise), but the impact of said statement would be lost when the new book came out. 
This would tend to indicate 0 did not know about this monument. It reduces the impact of his statement. So he's really not paying attention to matters military.
Then, his statement on bayonets was wrong. That's a bit more esoteric, when speaking off the cuff, but it was still an assumption based on the information he had, which wasn't adequate for the statement.
That leaves "X is to Y and Z" comparison. So, even accepting Romney's statement as bland and inaccurate (Keeping in mind he is not yet CinC and hasn't had a military brief), the comparison was poor. It indicates he thinks Y and Z aren't as useful or relevant as they used to be, and X isn't either. Yet provably, X, Y and Z are still all relevant. And he should certainly know X is still relevant because that IS part of his military briefs.
So, he made an off the cuff comment that tells us a lot about him--he's not paying attention to the military either operationally or socially, hasn't paid attention to some of the more interesting aspects of the clandestine war, and is dismissive of a suggestion of modernizing or upsizing, with a false comparison.
And this man has the responsibility and authority to send my wife and friends (And hypothetically recall me, as I'm Retired Reserve) off to fight a war he's not really paying attention to.
Unless he meant something entirely different and my grasp of military matters and writing is sub-par.S

So:

If I knew there was a John Ringo book coming out next week, I would not say "John Ringo is outdated," or even "John Ringo isn't publishing as much as he used to." Either statement COULD be correct (They're not, but this is a mental exercise), but the impact of said statement would be lost when the new book came out. 

This would tend to indicate 0 did not know about this monument. It reduces the impact of his statement, as we have seen from the massive mockery in the blogosphere.  Even if he were correct, it was a stupid thing to say in context, which is what a politician needs for good soundbites.  This was a TERRIBLE soundbite for a man trailing in the polls. So he's really not paying attention to matters military.

Then, his statement on bayonets was wrong.* That's a bit more esoteric, when speaking off the cuff, but it was still an assumption based on the information he had, which wasn't adequate for the statement.

That leaves "X is to Y and Z" comparison. So, even accepting Romney's statement as bland and inaccurate (Keeping in mind he is not yet CinC and hasn't had the relevant military brief), the comparison was poor. It indicates he thinks Y and Z aren't as useful or relevant as they used to be, and X isn't either. Yet provably, X, Y and Z are still all relevant. And he should certainly know X is still relevant because that IS part of his military briefs.

So, he made an off the cuff comment that tells us a lot about him--he's not paying attention to the military either operationally or socially, hasn't paid attention to some of the more interesting aspects of the clandestine war, and is dismissive of a suggestion of modernizing or upsizing, with a false comparison.

And this man has the responsibility and authority to send my wife and friends (And hypothetically recall me, as I'm Retired Reserve) off to fight a war he's not really paying attention to.

Unless he meant something entirely different and my grasp of military matters and writing is sub-par.  (HINT:  I am a career professional at both. I may be wrong, but no one has yet offered any substantive explanation as to how, only rants of, "You know what he meant!"  As writer, I perfectly understand metaphor and statement. This was a crappy metaphor and an incorrect statement.)

~~~

From others:

"Outside of the entire conversation before this, I guess that whole shift to the Pacific/Air Sea Battle planning stuff going on now missed 0's desk somehow. So, Romney was absolutely right to criticize him for having a smaller fleet. Just because we have carriers and subs, doesn't mean it's enough to accomplish our mission. 

Given that we do actually need more ships (of today's capabilities), and the impeding defense cuts will make that nearly impossible, Romney's comparison between 1917 and today was most certainly valid. 0's response to it was both flippant and uninformed, neither of which is acceptable for our CinC." (Army Intelligence officer)

__

"Actually being in the Navy, I'd like to point out most of our ships are pretty old, with some semi serious issues (how about a 3 story crack in the superstructure that's been welded closed twice?). And subs and carriers may be the glamorous ships, but without cruisers and destroyers, or even supply ships, they won't last 2 minutes in real combat.

When I worked at the Armory at my last shore command we had crates of Bayonets in our storage area, I think there were 6K when we did an annual Inventory once. One for each rifle in our inventory and some spares." (USN Petty Officer)

__

"Isn't it interesting that this President, who was touted as such an eloquent speaker back in 2008, has to have all these people come out and tell us what he _meant_ to say rather than simply relying on what he actually said?" (David Burkhead:  USAF Intelligence vet and physicist) 

~~~

* Production numbers for the 1905 Bayonet for the Springfield 1903 were ~1.5 million through 1922.  Production numbers of the M7, M9, and OKC3 bayonets from 1965-ongoing are ~2.5 million.  Granted, some have been surplussed, but they are certainly very much an issue item and in use, and in greater numbers than WWII.  He should have said, "Less battleships."

~~~

He was wrong, he was condescending, and he was poorly spoken, which is true of just about everything he's done.  Trying to tell me how he's really smarter than I am in my own field and I'm just too stupid to grasp it is hilarious.

  1. Immortalizing An Idiot
  2. Someone Else Tries to Reason with 0bama Supporters

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home